tmay

avon b7 said:

waveparticle said:

avon b7 said:

waveparticle said:

avon b7 said:

waveparticle said:

avon b7 said:

waveparticle said:

avon b7 said:

waveparticle said:

avon b7 said:

Yes, Huawei has been using the 'Vision' branding for a while now and specifically in AR glasses and smart screens too, so the Apple name does overlap slightly.

I'm currently interested in a Vision 3 to replace a Samsung TV if it gets a release in Spain. The previous model was available here. 

We are talking about well known, commercial products (and not all of them are limited to China) so it is hard to believe Apple wasn't well aware of the situation. 

It's possible that the issue has already been taken into account. 

There are only a limited set of English words to describe a specific thing. To grant patent of a word to a company is not right. Especially if the word is extended to a family. 

Yet lots of those limited words are present in trademarks. 

In this particular case it is Vision Pro and it is taken for exactly the same product category as the Apple Vision Pro. 

But then again, we used to have 'Apple Computer' and the fight with 'Apple music' . 

How many different words are there for 'Apple'? 

I don't disagree with you on the basics but that's how things are. 

There are General Motors, General Electric, General Instrument, and many more. I think Appel Vision Pro should be good to go as long as Huawei did not have a similar product already in market. 

Huawei has different eyewear products that range from simple 'smart' eyewear with audio, through to eyewear for AR and for viewing video.

It also has cameras for TVs for AR related tasks and gesture support. 

There are also non-eyewear products like AR-HUDs. 

It's very active in the imaging 'Vision' fields and has been working on XR from both a consumer and industry perspective. 

Huawei Vision does not have Apple Vision Pro equivalent. Judging from Huawei copycatting Apple products history, it will have one by the end of this year.

https://consumer.huawei.com/en/visions/s/

It doesn't need to have an Apple Vision Pro equivalent. 

There is absolutely no requirement for that but its case is strengthened by the fact that Huawei has been actively working in the AR field for years and with different shipping products. 

LiDAR, camera technology, gesture technology, AI, display technology, ultra low latency communications, chipsets, battery technology, software. 

On top of that it is also developing the ICT backend technology to support ubiquitous use of XR. 

If it trademarked the 'Vision Pro' name for ten years, it's reasonable to assume that a product might appear during that timeframe. 

As for the copycat claims, did you know that Apple is rumoured to licence almost 800 patents from Huawei, and over the last six years Huawei has pioneered a lot of features that have ended up in Apple products. 

Well, Apple licensing from Huawei is not a valid defense that Huawei did not copycat Apple products. Visit its product page, you can see that Huawei is trying to fool consumers. MateBook? MatePad? FreeBuds? 

Names? 

The Mate branding has been around since 2013. As computers and tablets were introduced, the naming spilled over into those categories as they were built with interconnection in mind. Hence the MateBook and MatePad. The naming makes a lot of sense. 

There is also a MatePad Paper with no Apple product equivalent. 

The Freebuds Pro were actually more advanced than Apple Airpods at launch. I see nothing similar in the name. 

At this year's WWDC did you notice that soon Apple will let you choose more devices for camera input/output (I can't remember which off the top of my head). Where have I heard that before? HarmonyOS!

And they also claimed faster syncing/lower Bluetooth latency. Where have I heard that before? HarmonyOS!

Air gestures? This is a few years old now:



Smart Eyewear:

https://consumer.huawei.com/en/wearables/huawei-eyewear/

That's now on Gen 3. 

Vision Glasses:

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Huawei-Vision-Glass-smart-glasses-debut-in-China-with-Micro-OLED-displays.673972.0.html

I really don't think they will have any problems defending their use of Vision Pro if it comes to the crunch but I don't think Apple will even try because it's no secret where Huawei is heading with all these technologies. 

As for a valid defence against the copycat claims, patents and products are perfect for that, along with massive R&D outlay. 

Anyone who only copies, doesn’t  invest 20 billion dollars in R&D every year and constantly make the top rankings for patents. It doesn't pioneer technology in several key industries. 

Well, even Huawei founder Ren admitted Huawei was a follower of Apple. Apple choose TSMC as chip fabrication partner, use Sony image sensor, and Huawei copied. Apple is the center of high tech innovation. 

"Apple is the center of high tech innovation"

I think you may have lost touch with reality. 

Remind me where Apple's 5G modem is? 

Apple is a CE company. It is vitally important that you keep that front and foremost in your trains of thought. 

Huawei has far more breadth (and responsability) in industry than Apple. 

Here is just the latest announcement, in this case in for fintech:

https://e.huawei.com/en/news/2023/industries/finance/data-infrastructure-architecture-f2f2x

That is an architectural proposition that Apple would never touch. It has nowhere near the resources or knowhow to get anywhere near that kind of mission critical technology. 


TSMC had Huawei as one its major customers and often began mass production of Huawei chips before starting Apple runs. That's why, up until government sanctions at least, Huawei and Apple were releasing phones on the latest nodes at the same time. 

It's ironic that you would note that that Apple "has nowhere near the resources or knowhow to get anywhere near that kind of mission critical technology" as Huawei, which is in fact the ongoing argument for removing Huawei from critical telecom infrastructure in the West. That Huawei had its hands in Xinjiang, spying on minorities, is well known, and sufficient in itself for blocking Huawei from Western technology.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/14/huawei-surveillance-china/

and;

https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/14/22834860/huawei-leaked-documents-xinjiang-region-uyghur-facial-recognition-prisons-surveillance

The Washington Post says it obtained the PowerPoints from a public Huawei site before they were taken down. According to the report, the slides included details on Huawei’s involvement with other companies in creating several systems and had metadata dating them anywhere from 2014 to 2020 (with copyright dates being listed from 2016 to 2018).

georgie01 said:

joogabah said:

No hypocrisy there at all.  America never bombs other countries or invades and topples other governments, even on false pretexts.  And America had nothing to do with Ukraine's 2014 coup either.  And it didn't state explicitly its plan to balkanize Russia as a prelude to war with China which it can't compete against.

Yes, long gone are the days when we could point the finger at other ‘evil’ countries as if the US and the West are much different. There was a time when the US was impressive, but we’re just standing on those past successes thinking we can redefine obvious truths and be successful when in reality we’re on a downward spiral. We need to fix ourselves before complaining about Russia.

LOL!

Russia has 1/4 of its people using outhouses, and living like serfs.

Russia is a failed state that is only really good at depopulating itself, and its neighbors, most of whom want to be economically tied to the EU and the West. The U.S., for all its faults, isn't even in contention for the "evil" that Russia is showing itself to have.

Alex1N said:

mfryd said:

Laws don't always have their intended effect.

If you read the EU law, it doesn't require that all phones have USB-C charging.  Only phones that charge with a wire.  Phones that charge exclusively via MagSafe, or other wireless charging methods do not need a USB-C connector.

Apple has the option of a software change to make the lightning connector "data only".  If they do that, all current iPhone models would meet the current spec, without any hardware changes whatsoever.

It turns out that the EU law, doesn't require USB-C, it merely prohibits other wired charging methods.  Apple has the option of choosing to meet the rules by reducing functionality via software for iPhones sold in the EU. 

I am in that boat already with my iPhone 12 Pro Max - the Lightning socket in the phone has failed completely, as in dead as a doornail, no charging or data. The only way to charge it is with the magnetic puck, which has, of course, its own USB-C connector and charger.

Using the USB-C pick is fine by me, the only skin that I really have in the iPhone Lightning game now is - or rather, was - CarPlay, but with the defunct Lightning socket I no longer have CarPlay access, which is annoying (a failed USB-C connector would result in the same CarPlay situation, natürlich).

If you haven't attempted to clean the socket, then I would do so, and there are a number of youtube videos for that. 

avon b7 said:

chutzpah said:

avon b7 said:

davidw said:

Kierkegaarden said:

What is the purpose of forcing a company to publish user numbers for a service?  Does this protect users or otherwise help them in some way?  This is all about control and nothing more. These new regulations will result in less innovation and more convoluted software interfaces.

The EU Commission has to keep tabs on the criteria that makes one a "gatekeeper". The EU commission wants to make sure none of the US big 5 techs falls below any of the criteria that they set to ensure that only the US big 5 techs are labeled "gatekeepers". If any of the US big 5 techs drops below any of the thresholds they set, they must convene to lower the threshold set in the DMA, to ensure that the US big 5 techs always remains a "gatekeeper". The DMA allows for this. 

https://www.ft.com/content/49f3d7f2-30d5-4336-87ad-eea0ee0ecc7b

>“Let’s focus first on the biggest problems, on the biggest bottlenecks. Let’s go down the line — one, two, three, four, five — and maybe six with Alibaba,” he said to the Financial Times. “But let’s not start with number 7 to include a European gatekeeper just to please [US president Joe] Biden,” he added. The EU defines “gatekeeper” companies as those which span several countries, have a significant impact on the market, and link large numbers of users to large numbers of businesses. <

Of course ..... "large number of users" ... is anywhere between the minimum that any of the US big 5 techs have and the maximum of any EU company. If the two numbers overlap, then that criteria will no longer be used to determine a "gatekeeper". 

And speaking of less innovation, here's a good article bringing up that point.

https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/the-digital-markets-act-the-path-to-overregulation/

We can dispute the criteria used to determine what constitutes a gatekeeper but attempting to draw up conspiracy theories is just wackiness.

The limits have been set. If an EU based company reaches gatekeeper status it will fall under the legal obligations too. 

That’s it. 

My house. My rules. And the same rules for everyone. 

As far as innovation is concerned, why not simply let the industry play out under the DSA/DMA and then evaluate the situation? 

Laws are not knocked up forever and unchangeable. They get reviewed. 

That said major EU directives have often been the model from which others imitate. 

Care to name a major EU directive that has bombed? How do they stand up when compared to others? Are EU citizens up in arms about them? If they are, I certainly haven't heard about them. 

The Common Agricultural Policy certainly has its critics, and its freedom of movement guarantee combined with a devolved and haphazard approach to bloc border control creates some problems.

No legislation will be free of critics but even the critics can't argue that the CAP hasn't been a success is many, many ways. The fact that is has been around for 60 years now says it all.

Some criticism is warranted but it wouldn't have been around so long if it had bombed (and the French have turned trashing lorries of Spanish tomatoes into a national past time). 

Free movement has been one of the quintessential examples of the EU getting things right. Probably the best EU example of the exact opposite of bombing. Once again though, for some people, the very nature of free movement is abhorrent.

Bloc border control is quite literally a non-issue for anyone with a EU member state identity card or passport, under the treaty regulations. Other considerations can come into play when individual states implement extra controls (as was the case with Covid) but that is normal as each member state retains the right to refuse entry on certain grounds and is provided for in the treaty. Also, member states can suspend Schengen adherence but if you have a valid ID/passport you are good to go. 

Sadly, after Brexit, I had to return my 'Member of the Union' certificate so free movement is gone for me. 

Thanks to the U.S. for "encouraging" the devastated countries of Europe to turn their backs on nationalism, and to forming a "United States of Europe", ie, the EU, with generous funding from the Marshall Plan, all under the protective umbrella provided by the U.S. during the Cold war.

But every once in awhile, French, German, or British nationalism, works to tear the EU apart, likely with assistance from foreign interlopers, such as Russia wrt Brexit.

Do better, EU, and yeah, the U.S. does has its own political problems.

waveparticle said:

darkvader said:

chasm said:

TDLR: dear Apple, diversify your supply chain, or better yet, get out to China. 

I don’t disagree, but as a thinking adult you undoubtedly know that this is not something that could be arranged in a few weeks. It would take at least a decade if not longer for this to happen, and indeed Apple is already well underway on its plan to diversify.

Apple also has to handle this transition diplomatically, as it also is caught between a rock and a hard place with regard to US-China relations. Not to mention the ability of the Chinese to amass gigantic, well-trained workforces that come (by western standards) extremely cheap.

I have no doubt Apple would be happy to have most iPhones made in stable democracies like Canada, the UK, and … well okay, we’ll call America stable for the moment … but are consumers prepared to pay (minimum) three times as much for your iPhone as you do now? I don’t think so.

Apple may not have a decade.  If PRC decides to attack ROC, trade will be shut down immediately because we will effectively be at war with PRC.  Doing business with PRC would be trading with the enemy.

Apple can either get out before that happens or be effectively shut down on hardware production.

A more probable scenario is Taiwan decided to reunite with mainland China peacefully. Isn't this the goal US seeks? Why would US be at war with PRC then? Only China haters do. 

Why would Taiwan want to reunite with the People's Republic of China at all, peacefully or otherwise? They would have to be oblivious to what happened to Hong Kong under Xi, and as a thriving democracy, they would be throwing themselves into the abyss of authoritarianism, which will ultimately fail in China with Xi.

More to the point, the CCP/PRC never, ever, controlled Taiwan, and in fact, during the formation of the CCP, Japan held Taiwan, only giving it back to the Nationalists after WWII. The only reason we are talking of this is that the U.S., et al, decided that the PRC should get China's seat at the U.N., and that was primarily about the U.S. assuring that  China would not ally at that time with Russia. 

The only reason that the PRC has not successfully invaded Taiwan to date, is that their military was incapable of doing so. That is less true today, but may change in the next five to ten years when the PRC becomes a regional peer power to the U.S. and our allies. 

Still, the PRC would have to be confident that they could weather a massive dislocation of world trade, which would certainly be part and parcel of the punitive actions and sanctions from the West. Meanwhile, the West is accelerating its buildup in the Pacific, so its a race to see if the PRC can act before the West is fully capable of protecting Taiwan.

Xi doesn't want to live by the rules of order that were the very reason that the PRC economy had such rapid growth, but that economy has matured, and China will never get rich before it gets old. Good luck on on keeping companies from moving elsewhere.